This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

In true Valve fashion, Gaben & Co. have just launched the long-awaited Source 2 engine… as part of the new Dota 2 Workshop Tools. Oddly, Valve isn’t confirming that this is actually Source 2 — but the Steam and Dota 2 communities are confident that this is it. You can also run an alpha version of Dota 2 in the new Source 2 engine, making it unofficially the first Source 2 game. Officially, we hope that Valve is still holding out for Half-Life 3 as the first real Source 2 game — the math checks out: Source 1 + Source 2 = Half-Life 3. Read on for our early impressions of the Source 2 engine, and how to try it out yourself.

Visually, Source 2 currently looks very similar to Source 1. It appears that some Dota 2 spells have different particle effects in Source 2 and lighting seems a bit fancier, indicating there’s been some underlying tweaks to the engine, but that’s about it. I wouldn’t worry too much, though — as far as I can tell, the Source 2 version of Dota 2 is using the exact same assets as the Source 1 version (yes, this means Source 2 appears to be backwards compatible with Source 1 games). We won’t see any significant visual differences until developers/games target Source 2’s new features. [Read: With a $10 million prize fund, Dota 2 is now one of the world’s biggest sports.]

Dota 2, Source 2: Shadowfiend’s Raze, with more particles

Dota 2, Source 1: Shadowfiend’s Raze, no particles

As for whether Source 2 uses DirectX/Direct3D, or OpenGL, the jury is still out. Historically, Source is a multi-platform engine that uses a variety of low-level graphics APIs. There are some new DLLs in the Dota 2/Source 2 directory that suggest D3D10 and D3D11 are both available. Personally, given Valve’s focus on cross-platform compatibility, the impending SteamOS/Steam Machines, and its declaration that OpenGL is faster than DirectX, I wouldn’t be surprised if Source 2 primarily targets OpenGL. (Though, given the Xbox One’s use of DirectX/Direct3D, there will certainly be a D3D version of Source 2 at some point.)

One other thing worth noting: The Source 2 version of Dota 2 loads much, much faster than the Source 1 version. It also feels snappier. I don’t know if this is entirely due to Source 2 (it could be down to some other changes in this alpha build of Dota 2), but it would make sense if that was the case. I also noticed, by looking at the Windows Task Manager, that this version of Dota 2 uses a 64-bit binary. Source has historically always been 32-bit. 64-bit Source 2 could partly explain why the game feels so snappy.

New Source 2 console, VConsole2, in its own window

The new Hammer map editor in Source 2

Beyond the game engine itself, this soft-launch of Source 2 also includes a brand new console called VConsole2, and a new version of the Hammer map/game editor. Curiously, VConsole2 appears to be a separate program with its own window — rather than Source 1’s in-game console. Hammer, which has gone virtually unchanged for a long, long time, has also been overhauled for Dota 2/Source 2.

That’s all there is to it. Now I’m going to play around with some DLLs and see if it’s possible to run other games in the Source 2 engine.

So, where’s Half-Life 3?

By this point you’re probably wondering why Valve chose Dota 2 as the stage for Source 2’s debut, rather than Half-Life 3. Well, for a start, it’s important to note that this is definitely a soft launch. We probably won’t see a lot of fanfare or an “official” launch until there’s a new triple-A game that uses the Source 2 engine and all of its glorious new features. This first official Source 2 game might well be Half-Life 3, though I wouldn’t be surprised if it was TF3, L4D3, Portal 3, or some other game entirely.

The other possibility is that, believe it or not, producing a big, pretty Source 2 game just isn’t a priority for Valve. As Gabe Newell noted in a Reddit AMA earlier this year, “The biggest improvements [in Source 2] will be in increasing productivity of content creation.” User-generated content from the Team Fortress 2 and Dota 2 Workshops have been a massive success story for Valve, both in terms of financial rewards and user engagement. I’m sure Half-Life 3 would make a lot of money, too — but rather than sinking hundreds of developers and millions of hours into a triple-A game, it’s probably much more efficient to just make more hats.

We’re not sure. It looks like it might be 64-bit only (64-bit OS, 64-bit CPU) — at least for now, anyway.

Robert Foy

Not being a troll or anything, but any gamer today, especially one that can run DOTA 2, or any Source game for that matter, should have a 64-bit OS. Everyone today has a 64-bit CPU, so there is zero reason to have 32-bit OS. And if your running Windows 7/8, and want 8 gigs or more RAM, you need 64-bit OS anyways.

I am pretty sure Valve will have as a requirement that games run on Source 2 will have to be 64-bit. Over 75% on the Steam survey has a 64-bit OS, and most linux users run 64-bit as well (no excuse to run 32-bit linux since the OS is FREE).

2014 and people still using 32-bit OS is about as dumb as using a rotary phone.

Dozerman

Some people are still rockin old rigs. If it works for you still, great, although it pisses me off when those same people complain about not being supported.

massau

those people mostly use or will use there smart phone as there computer replacement. if you do anything intensive on a pc than 6GB is the minimum.

Dozerman

That’s… odd….

massau

… you mean disturbing? i think it is because most people they to spend less money but want an Intel processor and buy an i3. many cheaper laptops have i3 processors in them.

its sad that intel didn’t make 4 cores the midrange.

Tom

Does that metric track logical or physical cores though? I like to use the Steam survey results to follow this sort of thing, but the stats could be skewed against the general population since a sizeable proportion will be gaming machines.

massau

it are the physical cores otherwise the 8 core count would be much higher.

so those are the I3 cores that drop the core counts. logical cores only increase the performance by 20% with “bad” code and <=0% with perfect code.

Nhalx

I am pretty sure that the steam survey collects data based on your processors system tag.

Like whatever brand and chip.
It will feature whatever that specific processors specs are.

It’s the same story with the Graphic Cards.

JD Rahman

Dual cores is rising on notebooks and ultrabooks. Perhaps the Pentiums for low cost rigs in developing nations as well.

massau

quad cores have been out for so long that it should be the mainstream no the high end.

dc

maybe the drop is because of people who keep 2 or 3 PCs running. My dad is like that. He has a laptop from 2004…. that still works.

massau

how can there be a drop in market share if the amount of old pc stay the same? that isn’t logic it can only change if people stop using there 4 cores or if people buy new 2 cores. the single core share only dropped by 0.5 so the higher growth rate of dual cores cannot come from there.

Robert Foy

If your sporting an old rig, you aint playing games like Left4Dead or DOTA. And 99% of the cpus in Steam hardware survey are 2+ cpus….aka they are modern-ish rigs. Videocards I can understand, but CPU? No, no real gamer has a single core CPU.

massau

but 50% and rising have dual cores i wouldn’t really call that multiprocessing its still a 80% performance improvement but an 4 core could get >340%.(the number includes overhead)

Purple-Stater

“Real” gamers use dice and have no need of CPUs.

dc

DOTA doesn’t take much to play really, not sure why you think it requires a new PC.

fosfseis

Even on decade old rigs you can hit the 32 bit wall. You can have at most ~3.5 GB of available memory so even with just 4GB of installed memory there is some benefit to 64 bit. (Provided your CPU supports it which by now even many “old” cpu’s do) I was running 64 bit windows xp way back then and that was when it was a “new” thing and drivers where a nightmare.

massau

yea win xpx64 was a “hack” it only got sold in commercial environment and 8 gig of ram was really expensive back than.

Mystyc Cheez

I don’t have a 64 bit compatible PC, I’m poor. :(

massau

so its an old atom chip or pre pentium4 tech? i reccomend updating the power you would save from the new core will have a fast pay back time especially with low end amd cores.

Robert Foy

This. People forget about the hidden costs of older computers, not to mention even modern CPUs. The main reason why I use Intel-based chips is not just for the performance, but the electric bill savings. AMD’s can run nearly as fast in general, but require on average 25% more electricity to power. That $50 you saved by buying the AMD equivalent CPU will actually cost you in the longer run, especially if your computer is on most of the time and you do a lot of gaming (my computer is on 90% of the time). That $50 savings will be lost within 2 months of electricity.

but once you scale beyond the integrated GPU than an i5 + dgpu would be a better choice in performance/watt. under-volting is of course recommended.
the i5 also wins if you do not use a GPU.

Niko of Death

DOTA 2 isn’t exactly the most graphics intensive game. Or any source game for that matter. My old rig could play most source games at 60fps when it played most modern games at 16fps.

64 bit OSes aren’t really necessary outside of workstations and gaming. And it’s idiotic to run a 64 bit os if you have a low amount of ram. And restricting 25% of your userbase from playing your game is very stupid buisness wise.

Robert Foy

Nah it isn’t. People will be forced to upgrade, as they should. The same argument could be said about any game that requires upgrading. If upgrading was always the deciding factor for gaming, we would still be gaming on the Commodore 64.

Build it, and they will come. If people can buy 100+ games on Steam, they can afford a modern CPU/videocard.

Niko of Death

Very few games actually need more than 2 GB of RAM. Maybe some games modded, but a game like DOTA 2 will never need 4 GB of ram.

Striker The Hedgefox

With new engine capabilities, and custom content creation entering the scene, DOTA 2 will likely need the RAM to compensate.

Let’s look at an older Source Engine game – TF2 as of this date, completely unmodded, has in my own experience been known to sometime consume over 3gb of RAM maxed out, and in a lot of action (such as in MvM). That leaves nearly *NO* RAM left for a 32-bit system, and it often ends up resorting to disk swapping.

My internet browser as of speaking is consuming a full 1.1gb of RAM, so that also means less is available to any games I may decide to run while playing. As of right now, I’m running TF2 with it, along with it all of Windows’ default processes running, Aero enabled, Steam, and the GitHub client. I currently am using 6.2gb of RAM.

Unless you want an assload of disk swapping, 64-bit is becoming more of a necessity these days, especially if you are a multi-tasker.

Niko of Death

That’s because 64-bit versions of software use more ram.

Also IIRC 32 bit applications can’t use more than 2gb of ram (not 100% sure)

DOTA will definitly not need it.

Alex

32bit applications can accept up to a total of 4GB of RAM on a 64bit system (via WOW64 w/ LAA) and 2GB on a 32bit system.

“And it’s idiotic to run a 64 bit os if you have a low amount of ram”

There is literally nothing wrong with running a 64bit OS with a low amount of RAM. Applications use more memory if they have more memory available to them. There’s nothing wrong with memory usage, assuming that application can cut back when needed (most do). As long as your processor is capable of it (and almost everything since 2004 is), for the love of everything that is holy, run a 64bit OS.

Striker The Hedgefox

That’s a myth. 64-bit OS’es need to use more RAM because there’s more to it, it has to be able to emulate a 32-bit system on top. 64-bit applications themselves, do not use more RAM.

Also, a 32-bit application that is Large Address Aware, can allocate more than 2gb of RAM.

Gaming grade RAM? I’ve never heard of such a thing. Faster? Meh. More? Eh.
__________________________________________________________________
Most computers come with 4 GB default, and above average 8 GB default. Upgrading to 8 GB is a must if you have a x64 OS installed. No way is an application going to make use of that full 4GB table when your computer has a multitude of asinine background processes running.

Dozerman

Maybe they’ve finally gotten on the multithreading bus…We can only hope.

Also, is this free by any definition of the word? Knowing that Valve is jumping on the linux bandwagon so hard, I wouldn’t be surprised if they also released the source… uhh… source.

massau

highly unlikely i also think that there are some sources protected by special licenses so if it gets launched i would suspect a GPL license for free. paid users get LGPL and commercial might get an even freer license.

Dozerman

Even freer? What? BSD? That could be scary…

massau

GPL= source must be open
LGPL= source may be closed but changes to the library must be open sourced and use DLLs

BSD= do whatever you want with it.

the commercial license would probably include statical linking and some modifications to the source but not as free as BSD.

Niko of Death

No games are going to use multithreading to it’s true potential because of intel.

Dozerman

I can’t say that that is so true. Intel was a huge pusher of PVM and MPI back in the day and has some excellent OpenCL support on their integrated GPUs. Claimiing they don’t support anything but single threaded performance is a bit off.

Striker The Hedgefox

It’s become pretty clear that the guy doesn’t know much of what he’s talking about at this point.

Dozerman

In the same breath, I wasn’t saying there isn’t anything wrong here. Games should absolutely be using a lot more threads now than they used to. There are a lot of gamers these days that have eight threads to be used.

Striker The Hedgefox

Aye, it would be nice to see more developers take advantage of multi-threaded systems.

Dulguun Otgon

The thing is concurrency is hard, even for the pros. Mainly because of their imperative paradigm, which is state centric. Switching to functional paradigm can make concurrent code easy, (maintainable, bug free, easy to read etc translates to less cost). However, all FP languages have some overhead that decreases performance. Which is the enemy of video games.

Also I don’t know what kind of gibberish nonsense you are talking about.

Now, I love a good TF2 hat as much as the next guy, but if you want to keep the best artists around, you have to give them something more rewarding to create than a TF2 hat.

RadicalElation

I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if the Black Mesa standalone will be one of the first “launched” Source 2 game, as a kind of spectacular start to the engine. Revisiting the game that started Valve’s success, but on the new engine.

I know for a fact that Black Mesa is going to be on Source 2 because when they first announced the standalone, they said in the forums that it was going to be on a different engine, due to license issues with selling a standalone on that particular build of Source, but, due to an NDA with Valve, they weren’t allowed to talk about the engine. Why wouldn’t they be allowed to talk about an engine everyone already really knows about, unless it was something new? With Valve it could only be Source 2.

It would attract new players into the franchise, then Half-Life 2 would be brought over, maybe given some extra sheen… hopefully it would lead up to Half-Life 3, but that might be taking it too far. It’s more plausible than some of the theories out there for HL3, and would marketing sense.

Robert Foy

Ummm…Black Mesa has already been released lol. Unless your saying they are going to do a Source 2 version after the fact.

RadicalElation

Black Mesa was released as a Source mod, where you could play it if you had any Source game.

They announced months back that they’ll be releasing a purchasable full-fledged Black Mesa standalone game.

Further in the thread, there’s mention of the differences between the future free version and the sold version, and they said they couldn’t speak much about that.

The important bit:“The free version of the game has been ported to Source 2013. Right now, that version is functionally equivalent to the released version of Black Mesa we released a year ago. When we got on greenlight, we were forced to move to another engine. Right now, we can’t tell you what that engine is due to our licensing agreement. Being on this new engine allows us to change how the engine works, modify tools, etc; things we plain and simply cannot do for the free version.”
Found:http://forums.blackmesasource.com/showpost.php?p=564023&postcount=11

As they said at the time, they ported the free version to Source SDK 2013, so what else could they build the new, purchasable standalone one in that’s a new engine, but they’re not allowed to talk about?

Source 2 seems about the only answer, yeah?

Niko of Death

Also remember that a very similar thing happened with Trokia and VTM:B

Valve is also working on its own physics engine, Rubikon, for Source 2… There will be big improvements on that side too.

Marocco2

Do you know if there will be a dynamic cubemap?

IKROWNI

1 could only wish for valve to use the dirty tactics the consoles do and release all there new source 2 games on pc as exclusives for pc only. Would definitely bring more gamers from the console market over to pc. It would make a lot of sense with there steam machines coming out right around the corner alongside the new engine. Sure they would get more game sales out of the gate by releasing on all platforms but if you can move masses to the platform they dedicate themselves to it will eventually turn a higher profit by keeping there new games pc exclusive.

Yazan

You do know that the only reason devs release on a single plat is because the console’s creators pay top dollar to get it as an exclusive? Who’s gonna pay VALVe to release Source 2 games on PC? Microsoft? They’d just pay them to release it as an Xbox exclusive. Besides, just about all people who play VALVe games (Bar maybe the Portal games) are already playing on PC. Seriously.

True, Valve needs money. It would be stupid of them to push for a PC exclusive. They’ve already shown the will to port; or have ported, their games. Quite often with favor from all platform communities.

Sam Cerulean

The reason the graphics don’t look any better is because the Assets are the same meaning they’re unlikely making full use of the system assets. It’s exactly the same with Unreal Engine 4 showing Unreal engine 3 scenes, they look very mediocre.

Aaron527

I dont think it would be in Valves best interests to release TF3. Maybe some themed hats or something, but its hard top make a sequel to a game with no story.

They wouldn’t make Team fortress 3, they make enough off Tf2 from the store, why waste more money making a third?

baloch

very good

Cobsad

There’s no reason not to have a 64 bit capable system by now

Jordan Richards

I doubt OpenGL, especially since they joined Khronos Group to develop Vulkan. Definitely not DirectX though, that’s not a great business strategy given the launch of the Steam machine…

Matthew John Hayden

2 cents says L4D3 is the first new game, and that TF2 gets a Dota-style make-over!

This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

ExtremeTech Newsletter

Subscribe Today to get the latest ExtremeTech news delivered right to your inbox.

Email

This newsletter may contain advertising, deals, or affiliate links. Subscribing to a newsletter indicates your consent to our
Terms of Use and
Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe from the newsletter at any time.